<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learning · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1803.04383/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1803.04383/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learning — mentioned by lightcatcher</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25297624</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1803.04383:25297624</guid><pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:50:00 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Fairness, Accountability, Transparency (aka FAT) is a real sub-field of machine learning, that is as technical as any other machine learning sub-field in my opinion. It is not a PR stunt. I&amp;#x27;ve published at top ML conference a paper about some CUDA kernels I wrote to accelerate training a class of RNNs, so I feel have technical grounding to make these claims. Here are some FAT papers I&amp;#x27;ve enjoyed: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.08010 https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.04023 https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04383 (won best paper award at ICML 2018) Many FAT papers are published at NeurIPS or ICML (generally…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1803.04383/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item><item><title>Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learning — mentioned by google234123</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24603607</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1803.04383:24603607</guid><pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2020 01:59:52 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Reducing accuracy to try and improve fairness is definitely the politically correct thing to do. There was a good paper on this topic about how trying to make a model more fair can result in worst outcomes: https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04383 If some group does happen to have a higher recidivism risk, pretending this isn&amp;#x27;t true and just correcting against that fact will just result in more crime.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1803.04383/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item><item><title>Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learning — mentioned by yorwba</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18982791</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1803.04383:18982791</guid><pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 20:51:32 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The problem is the self-reinforcing, external factors that these algorithms don&amp;#x27;t take into account. And changing the algorithms isn&amp;#x27;t the right way to fix those external factors. If you try, their self-reinforcing nature is going to cause exactly the opposite of what you want. To stay with the crime vs. race example, assume that the ratio of black to white criminals is greater than you&amp;#x27;d expect from the ratio of blacks to whites in the overall population, and that is due to self-reinforcing external factors. Your algorithm for deciding whether to parole a prisoner picks up on that…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1803.04383/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
